I don't think there is much people left in eBe believing your lies, Konrad.

You will see eBE is quite different now and your power here has surely waned. Your hollow words and pictures without context does not work here. In the end, your style of arguments is no better than the PTOers here. You shout a lot. You make a lot of noise. But you will never make a rational and coherent argumentation. That is why you are stuck with personal attacks and name calling.

Konrad Neumann wrote: But you will never make a rational and coherent argumentation.

Says the guy who rejects quantitative analysis with vague deepities like "can't take the pain"

(whataboutism, I know)

And what is your point exactly? How much numbers of illegal immigrants do you want to see before you think there is a problem. In the social science, there are more than just quantitative analysis. What makes humanity such an interesting subject to study is the normative and qualitative component. The study and analysis of humanity cannot be conducted as a hard science like physics etc. So while you want to make yourself sound intellectual etc, I question many things. First in depth analysis with quantitative research is not beneficial. Most people are not active and those who do reply tends to be active people anyways. The samples themselves are questionable. The samples are not preselected to have a clear representation of the many different aspect of the diverse community but those who read the media and takes time to reply. It is purely on a readership/ volunteer basis which does affect the data collected. I am against quantitative research in eRep because in the end, it will not produce an accurate representation. People who do it lacks standards and proper methodology. Collecting data based on people who read your article who decided to do the google doc form/ people who got the google doc from from IRC and forum is not good quantitative research. I do not want to even call it quantitative research as it does it a huge injustices. Collecting numbers and making a graph is not quantitative research. So in other words, people doing "quantitative research" in this game is a travesty to the real scholarly exercise.

In addition, one can have rational argumentation with out numbers/ quantitative analysis. Normative argumentation are valid and rational. This very discussion in which I offers you no numbers but I make a point and defended a point with my perspective as well as evidence is a logical and rational discourse. This is a lot more than what some people in eBE does when they show pictures without context or resort to name calling to bully their way into power etc...

Coprolyth wrote:With two quote of yourself, I destroy all your wall of text full of nonsens. Anyway, if you're up for the challenge, come back to eBelgium Konrad, I miss you : )

If you have any integrity, answer my question. What year was that photo taking? What context does it have? If you keep it up, I will sue you in the eBE court for libel. For the pictures are 2-3 years old under totally different time periods, environment and leadership. It shows how strong your position is if you have to resort to slander and libel to criticize me.

Coryn, things really have changed since you were active. You would do well to get up to speed before attacking. And I understand how Konrad comes across, and he knows I have issues with it, but I can tell you that I know he really does care about eBE or he wouldn't be trying so hard to make people wake up and try to make it better. Love of country isn't about flag waving. It's about wanting it to live up to its potential.

Konrad wrote:And what is your point exactly? How much numbers of illegal immigrants do you want to see before you think there is a problem. In the social science, there are more than just quantitative analysis.

You basically described how different kinds of analysis complement each other, that is not the same as criticizing someone for using quantitative data on top of his or her personal sense like you did earlier.

And if you have a suggestion to improve the methodology, please do share. It is also a reality in the social sciences that you will rarely have ideal conditions to pull out significant data. Pointing out the possibility of bias (which is almost always there) isn't enough, you must clarify why a certain aspect of the methodology would alter the outcome enough that the conclusions the author got out of it are at stake.Unless shown otherwise the data from Bok has a certain amount of indicative power. I highly encourage debate and critical reasoning on the conclusions but outright rejecting what such info the data may bring on basis of the reasons outlines by your earlier comment is not what I would call rational and your current criticism not developed enough, whether or not the rest of your argument is demonstrative of your opinion on eBelgium.

eBe is a little country, the bias you outlined favors responses from more active and willing members, which is not that bad of a bias since those are generally the people causing the most changes and influences. And with a quarter or a third of a party responding, there already is a high minimum of value in the data.

Konrad wrote:So while you want to make yourself sound intellectual etc

Although I smirked when reading that in the middle of your poeta doctus paragraph, it is not my impression that I'm especially fixated on displaying my knowledge. May other people tell otherwise if that is the case.